Anyone who has failed to note the complete capitulation of American progressives to the Obama line should consider the dramatic contrast posed today on the question of the president’s “right” to assassinate American citizens. On the one hand, Rand Paul, a Republican icon, has mounted a one-man filibuster to protest the appointment of John Brennan, one of the architects of Obama’s assassination policy, as Director of the CIA. As Paul argues, the current “guidelines,” drawn up by the Obama “team,” would have allowed President Nixon to assassinate Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Staughton Lynd, and others during the Vietnam War. Why has it taken a rightist to point out what progressives should have been screaming about for years? Where have such figures as Maddow, Dionne, Herzberg, Chait, Tomasky, Edsall, and others have been?

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has argued that President Obama has the legal authority to use predator drones such as this one for targeted strikes against U.S. citizens. Credit: U.S. Air Force.

An answer to this question can be found by reading Michael Moore’s encomium to the film Zero Thirty Hours, which appeared recently in Huffington Post. The film is a highly sophisticated ratification of the whole set of assumptions that Americans hold regarding 9/11. As is frequently repeated in the film: we were innocents, attacked from outside, 3000 fellow citizens were killed. True, the film portrays America as using torture, but in a context that makes that usage understandable, though not necessarily wise.

Moore, however, interprets the film as a progressive fairy tale. According to him, the story the film tells is about a bad stupid man, George W. Bush, who instituted torture because he didn’t believe in intelligence, and didn’t understand why it was so important to kill Osama Bin Laden. A good, smart man, however, Barack Obama, ended torture, embraced intelligence and killed Bin Laden. Here we have a nice summation of the self-congratulatory but utterly misinformed American Left.

In fact, by any reasonable definition, torture (“extended interrogation”) was never ended, and continues to this day. Furthermore, it was Bush who ended water boarding, in 2003. Insofar as Obama changed our policy it was through the use of targeted assassinations, rather than the former policy of capturing and imprisoning suspected terrorists without trial. It is true that Bush began the process of abrogating habeas corpus, but in killing American citizens without any trial Obama has gone way beyond the previous administration, and without the shock and urgency that pervaded the Bush years. So far Obama has killed four Americans abroad. When will progressives like Moore drop their misguided view that the job of the Left is to protect every misguided step taken by Obama, and return to a critical point of view.

ok,………..that could apply to the rare exception to the rule, as always……………………… and does that justify giving the president power to order assassinations without checks and balances of legal appointees or some clear, serious congressional powers to review such decisions?

and what of the logical, rational, humane alternative………….making the effort to capture such suspects for fair trials before deciding to kill them?!

even moreso, how does the occasional exception we agree can happen, develop into the power to order drone assassinations on home territory?/!! have we become so inept in home security as not to be able to offer our own citizens the basic human right of fair trials…….to avoid some of the countless mistakes made in targeting wrongly, rashly, carelessly, or simply inaccurately !!??

Osama sent drones, using planes and people, to kill.
I believe the opposite of that.

Many celebrating the deaths of enemies on9/11.
I believe in the opposite of that.

Osama wanted dead anyone who had a different theology, ideology and national identity from his.
I believe in the opposite of that.

Anything Osama wanted to do, I do not want to imitate.
He hated, I want to love.
I don’t want to be sucked into the Osama way.

So it is almost impossible to respond to your post.
I don’t want to support Osama in any way.
So I’m trying to find a way to fight that does not repeat and copy his evil.

I desire life and abundant love for all, even evil enemies.
I want them transformed and changed.
I’m thinking that even if we killed all the bad guys, there would be more bad guys who would come from the good guys.
How do we escape this trap?

sammy, The man and his son who were murdered by US drone strikes in Yemen, were by no stretch of the imagination “combatants.” Guess you don’t care about the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. You have that in common with the President, and evidently Michael Moore.

knowiing what politicians and power-holders tend to do, the law in US was meant to protect people, ESPECIALLY CITIZENS, from potentially ruthless politicians or other power-holders who both tend to make mistakes and also are tempted to abuse their power to simply do away with those who oppose them. the law, and moreso, basic morality, must protect people from such possibility by offering all the right to fair trial. INTENT to kill is an easy thing to accuse a person of, especially if you don’t have to prove it……….a very convenient way to eliminate any possible opposition to those in power.

we all know from history, the repeated tendency for absolute power as this to abuse its privilege and do away with ALL or ANY PERCIEVED threat to their hold on power. (remember McCarthy??)….

an example of a much more frequent and widespread amount of aggression, domestic violence: even a wife reporting her husband’s verbal threats to kill her HAS TO HAVE SOME STRONG EVIDENCE in order to have him locked up indefinitely, or executed…………………and domestic violence (most frequently against women and children) is much much more widespread and prevalent a force in the world everywhere…..

oh, and drunk driving…….how about executing every driver found with too much alcohol??!!……there’s a definitley potential killer of innocent american citizens, for sure, yet, no elected or appointed official can simply claim ‘potential threat’ and execute them, or even lock them up with no trial and indefinitely.

those in power need to prove they are truly doing their job, lest they get addicted to the easy power that comes with societies always living in perceived threats by enemies, provable, factual, true or not. justice and humane law was created specifically to protect citizens from their own leaders, notoriously known to have the universal foible of addiction to extreme power.
lies are so easy for them to apply when they don’t have to prove them……….. we as humans pride ourselves on striving for fairness and morality to counter a weakness we seem to develop for unlimited power over others as some sort of claim of self defense.

Anwar Al-Awlaki was not going to be coming to tyne US for trial. He was not only out of US jurisdiction,he was inaccessible for arrest. As a self described commander in AQ, he was trying direct terror attacks within US borders.

He made a choice to become an enemy combatant. As combatant, he carries the risk of getting killed. As an American, he committed treason by targeting his fellow Americans.

Finally, and everyone seems to miss this. AQ terrorists do not fear death, believing that they’ll arrive in paradise as a martyr. Why cry for him? According to his beliefs, he’s in a better place.

A very good article by Zaretsky. I think using these two men’s position on Obama’s drone policy is a good illustration of the confusion in the culture of progressive politics today. However, there may also be cultural changes afoot that support Zaretsky’s argument. I think one of the least observed tools in analysing progressives’ uncritical support of Obama’s drone policy is ‘pink washing’.

As a LGBTI person of color, I have watched the progressive community’s lack of insight into how a sometimes shallow and sudden support of the LGBTI community has helped governments brand their actions as legitimate. Pinkwashing has also helped to justify a new form of progressive racism (Islamophobia, anti-Chinese, suspicion of all SE Asian countries) under the guise of patriotism and gratitude for overdue acceptance by the military. You see, if even gays and lesbians can reject other cultures and support first strikes and targeted killings, it can’t really be that bad. Conversely, LGBTI culture has become more embracing of military solutions and culture in the media.

Young celebrities (traditional Democratic/Progressive trend-setters) and performers now promote military culture as a statement that we are now part of the mainstream. It’s almost an apology for our history. Now we’re in favour – we will support whatever actions ensure that we – stay in. I’m not saying change isn’t good in this case, but that the timing and strategy of LGBTI support by governments has confused a lot of progressives and helped them to support issues they previously would have found abhorrent. This, in turn has helped some governments stay in power even as they have failed every other test of good government.

Just to put this into a bit of context. During Obama’s 2008 campaign, he clearly state that he will aggressively pursue the Taliban into Pakistan. IN fact, He even drew criticism from McCain. But that was his stated policy.

After 911 NATO joined forces with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban and pursued Al Qaida. This is a Taliban that not only backed the attacks o the US, it created one of the most oppressive societies for woman in the world. Woman could no set foot outside their houses alone. They could not go to school or work. They are stones to death in public for alleged crimes.

Ever since the Taliban were deposed, they have been fighting a dirty war, purposely blowing up men, woman a children. They move into villages, and assassinate any leader who opposes their presence. They use civilians as human shields. They are trying to win back power.

Do you want the Taliban to return to power as a LBGT person of colors? . Do yo want Afghan woman to lose any gains they have made. Is this what yo are looking for while you fight for civil rights at home. Please tell me you don;rt want the Taliban back in power.

The term “Pinkwashing” is BS. Israel was accused of “pinkwashing the conflict with the Palestinians. Israel has gone has gone as far if not further than the US in regard ot LBGT rights and they did it for the right reason. It was not to won the sympathies of a small constituency.